Pages

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The BOS held a re-hearing of the Los Osos Hideous Sewer Project to re-fiddle with the language in condition #97 to change the language a bit concerning water use, re-use, and return to basin issues that were raised by the Coastal Commission’s own appeal, said appeal being the only one being revisited. County Council McNulty didn’t think that this hearing would cause a problem with all the other appellants whose issues were not re-visited at this re-hearing – just the Coastal Commission’s concerns – and so he felt that the CC would, maybe, sorta wing it during their appeals hearings and try to accommodate all the other appeals. Or maybe the other appellants would have to re-submit their appeals or only submit another appeal based on the result of this one issue on top of their original appeal, or maybe . . . oh, who knows? Since this BOS hearing is outside the usual procedures, I guess everybody is winging it with the hope that nobody will take umbrage and call their attorney.

After public comment, staff told the BOS that the Coastal Commission staff was happy with the language proposed (the old CYA) and he felt that the Coastal Commission Board would be happy as well and might well withdraw their appeal. With no BOS Board member discussion, the revision passed 5 – 0.

In addition to public comment, John Diodoti noted that the County has secured a $16 million Federal grant and a $64 million 40-year loan, which will help with the cost a bit. Further, there’s a new blog on funding issues being set up at www.slocountypw.blogspot.com. (Let’s hope some of the nastier “anonymous” people who comment on this and other blogs, don’t show up on John’s blog. Eeeuuuuuu.)

Some public comment notes:

Alon Perlman suggested that it would be prudent for the county to stop pretending that the ISJ process is some kind of far-away vague proceeding that can be dealt with later, and start getting specific in identifying areas where the returning water will be going. That is, it’s better to get more specific now and plan for water return rather than leave it all vaguely up to a judge somewhere, sometime.

And both Linde Owen and Julie Tacker reminded the Board – again – of the time and money (taxpayer money) wasted by the whole focus on Tonini spray fields. That Supervisor Gibson’s previous comments on how closely the county has been working with the Coastal Commission was clearly at odds with reality since the CC fired off a letter of concern early-on about “spraying” water outside the basin. So, if the county had been in close contact with the CC, somebody somewhere would have said, “Psssst, don’t waste any time and money on spray fields; they’ll never fly.” Doncha think?

Ron Crawford of Sewerwatch Checks In Did I say, somebody somewhere would have, could have, should have, actually did toss down warning flags before all that nice money was blown on Tonini? Well, Ron Crawford, of www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com certainly has something to say about that in a comment on my blog that’s simply too funny not to repeat here. On that particular thread, some folks were whining about what a pest former CSD Director, Julie Tacker is, to which Ron noted:

[quoting a previous poster] "Yes she's droned on before the BOS; I've seen them reach for their airsickness bags."

See? There's the problem.

Because she was 100-percent right on the groundwater/basin issue, instead of reaching for their airsickness bags, the Board should have just listened to her, and stopped wasting all of that money studying a DOA location -- the Tonini site.

My favorite part about this situation, is how Gibson limited her time to speak because he said the same people were saying the same thing over and over again.

Well, yeah, Bruce... Julie WAS saying the same thing over and over again. She was saying that the Tonini site wasn't going to work because it didn't return groundwater to the basin, then, after Bruce's Board threw a bunch of money at the Tonini site, it didn't work, just like Julie told them over and over and over again, while they were wasting time and money on the Tonini site.

When she had three minutes to speak, she said it like this, "The Tonini site is infeasible because it doesn't return groundwater to the basin."

Then, Bruce started whining, and cut her time down to two minutes, so she had to say it like this:"TheToninisiteisinfeasiblebecauseitdoesn'treturngroundwatertothebasin. Out!"

And they still didn't listen to her.

Last week, I e-mailed Paavo asking him for a "ballpark figure" on how much money his department wast... errrrrrrrr... spent on studying the Tonini site.

Of course, he never replied.

So, next week, I'll be doing a public records request for that information, and then (here's the cool part) in my public records request, I'm also going to ask for the cost of fulfilling my public records request, that I was forced to do just because Paavo won't answer my one, excellent question:

"How much money was spent (read: wasted) by the SLO County Public Works Department studying the Tonini site as the preferred location in 2008 - 09?"

9:45 AM, November 21, 2009

Pretty funny. Pretty expensive, but pretty funny. But there’s the key to why so much of this project kept and keeps turning into a train wreck: False branding and framing.

Once you frame or brand something, people stop seeing complex reality and instead, see the “brand.” More often than not, branding is an advertising technique used to create a false image that can then be used to manipulate people into buying something. In politics, “framing an issue” serves the same purpose – set up a false or cherry-picked “reality” in order to shape (frame) a complex issue in order to manipulate the voter.

That happened to Los Osos early on. It was very cleverly branded as a town with “raw sewage running down the streets,” a town of scofflaws who “don’t care about the environment,” a town filled with “Anti-Sewer Obstructionists” who needed to be “fined out of existence.” Anyone who objected in any way with any proposed project, even people who were trying hard to create a BETTER SEWER PROJECT, were immediately called Anti-Sewer Obstructionists and thus branded, they could be dismissed as . . . one of those. And, of course, if you’re “one of those,” you don’t need to be listened to. Even if you’re 100% right and are telling everyone as loudly as you can, Stop. Bridge Out. Cliff ahead.

Or as Ron would put it: Stopbridgeoutcliffahead!

That’s the problem with branding. Besides being dishonest, it blinds people to a complex reality on the ground and always, always wastes tons of money. Tons. And too often turns into a train wreck, as well.

Saint DeVaul Makes The L.A. Times

The Tribune’s front page picture by Joe Johnston of Dan DeVaul being cuffed (and headed for jail after refusing in court to comply with the probation requirements) and the story by Nick Wilson made the L.A. Times.

Noted the Tribune, “In explaining his reasons for sentencing De Vaul, [Judge] Trice said that De Vaul has ‘good intentions’ but that his argument was confusing the ‘social issues with legal issues.’”

“ ‘De Vaul has not been a good steward of the beautiful property he has,” Trice said, adding that DeVaul has consistently ignored county inspectors and ‘such conduct can only be viewed as irresponsible and arrogant.’”

And, in case you thought this case couldn’t get any weirder, an updated Tribune story informs us that one of the jurors in the case, Mary Partin, paid De Vaul’s $500 bail so he only got to spend one night in the pokey. Which is kind of nice: Martyrdom on the cheap. And of course, De Vaul’s attorney is appealing the case to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Ventura, so it remains to be seen what will transpire.

The Nov 24th Tribune story had a side bar listing “what’s next” including County inspectors allowing DeVaul to comply with the code once he’s out of jail and if he doesn’t, they’ll clean the place up and send him the bill. Then if he refuses to pay that bill, those charges will appear on his taxes.

Missing from that sidebar is this worst case scenario: De Vaul property goes into tax default, is sold at auction, bought by a big developer, the “homeless people” evicted, property is annexed to the city, high-end “ranchettes” and condos, maybe a lovely little high-end shopping center (nice sales taxes to the city) are built, with some open space mitigation to make it all look nice.

As for De Vaul, the County and this whole mess? My only response at this point is I want to spank everyone involved in this ridiculous fiasco. It is an instructive case, however, a perfect illustration of: Do you want to be right or do you want to get something useful done, like helping the people you claim you want to help?

96 comments:

And speaking of things that I wrote, that are funny (although, this one's not really "ha-ha" funny)...

Ann wrote:

"And, in case you thought this case couldn’t get any weirder, an updated Tribune story informs us that one of the jurors in the case, Mary Partin, paid De Vaul’s $500 bail so he only got to spend one night in the pokey."

About a year ago, I wrote a story for UncoveredSLO/CalCoastnews.com, where I showed how, according to official documents from the State Dept. of Corrections, and the SLO Grand Jury, the SLO County Sheriff's Department's Women's jail facility is in GROSS violation of State building codes (arguably worse than anything DeVaul's done), and has been for more than a decade (longer than DeVaul), and the SLO County Sheriff's Department just jailed someone for being in violation of building codes.

In my story, I also showed how the SLO County Sheriff's Dept. has a way to immediately bring the facility into compliance (through a mandatory home detention program), but they won't do it, because they want to send "a wake-up call" to the inmates, and that policy puts them in the minority of CA counties to go that route, and also exposes them to (more) litigation.

I just LOVE that story... now, more than ever:

The SLO County Sheriff's Dept. just jailed someone for violating building codes, when the SLO County Sheriff's Dept. is in gross violation of building codes... and has been for longer than DeVaul, according to SLO County Grand Jury, and State Dept. of Corrections, documents.

Ann says:"Once you frame or brand something, people stop seeing complex reality and instead, see the “brand.” More often than not, branding is an advertising technique used to create a false image that can then be used to manipulate people into buying something. In politics, “framing an issue” serves the same purpose – set up a false or cherry-picked “reality” in order to shape (frame) a complex issue in order to manipulate the voter."

Like $100 out-of-town?

Well, we have our much more expensive sewer out-of-town, plus a bankruptcy to pay for. Guess you got what you wanted - sort of.

You're mistaking a campaign promise/rhetoric ($100 out of town, $38 a month) with framing/branding a group or certain people in order to demean, diminish, obscure or dismiss whatever it is they support/stand for.Early on, the Save The Dream folks blurred "anti-sewer" with "Anti-Tri-W." That's caused no end of trouble to Los Osos.

And Ron, Oy. Only in SLOTown.You should send a copy of that article to Christine Mulholland, who had an op/ed piece in the Tribune decrying treating poor people like second hand citizens by ignoring De Vaul and allowing them to live in dangerous, out of code, sub-standard housing. But I guess sub standard, dangerous, out of code jails are O.K. Pretty funny.

Don't you think that there were any No Sewer people on that Move the Sewer bandwagon? How did 80% for support for a pond with its attendant smells morph into hatred of Tri-W? Who started that? Miss No-Sewer Julie certainly did her part. (She has since cleaned up that part of her act of course.)

Don't you think "Overflows!" "Stench!" "Sludge falling off the back of trucks!" was in the order of "demean, diminish, obscure or dismiss?"

Two weeks ago, I spoke with two people who distributed the $100/month fliers. Both told me that approximately 500 copies were handed out. Most of the fliers were put on the table at the South Bay Community Center in a stack where CSD meeting attendees could pick them up. In 1998, when the Solutions Group sent out their newsletter invoking the $38.75/month plan, according to Pandora Nash-Karner at the time, that newsletter was sent to every home in the Prohibition Zone.

Sure, both the $100/month and the $38.75/month claims are equally absurd, but the fact of the matter is that the $38.75/month claim was packaged as a neatly crafted presentation. That claim was packaged as part of the definitive "Community plan" as supported by the Coastal Commission. The $100/month flier was one page with a couple of sentences and the flier looked like someone printed the document from an old version of Microsoft Word.

I'm not talking about these fliers affecting voter outcome. I'm simply talking about the aesthetic appeal of these fliers. There's no exit poll that says what made voters vote the way they did in 2005 and I'm not going to pretend that they exist. I'm just advising you that by invoking the $100/month, you'll also be inviting criticism of the $38.75/month claim -- so it would be a good idea for you to not even use that as a persuasive argument.

Aaron, you clearly have not studied marketing or advertising. The appeal of the MSWord crafted document is what sold it, whether the originators knew that or not. Don't you recall the criticism of the County's glossy flyers on the WWTF? Where I used to work, the perceived quality was the point and we dialed down specific publications to make the "thrifty" point to increase sales. I am making exactly that point -- to criticize both - you are the first to "get" that to criticize one is to criticize the other.

My guess is that as cost was featured, that is what sold both types of flyers.

Toonces sez:"Don't you think that there were any No Sewer people on that Move the Sewer bandwagon?"

The issue is lumping No with Move and calling them all ANTISEWER. That did a huge disservice to Los Osos.

And" How did 80% for support for a pond with its attendant smells morph into hatred of Tri-W?"

The original CSD assured the public repeatedly, from the official dais at public official meetings that there would be no smells with the Ponds of Avalon, they spoke of visiting a pond system up north and publicly and officially declared that there were no smells. & etc.

and"Who started that? Miss No-Sewer Julie certainly did her part. (She has since cleaned up that part of her act of course.)"

Actually, I think you'd have to look at the work done by the alphabet soup groups LOTTF, etc. ) who began looking into the morphed Tri-W project and found no end of problems which they regularly brought to the attention of both regulators, county, during the various EIR process and the Old CSD.

and" :Don't you think "Overflows!" "Stench!" "Sludge falling off the back of trucks!" was in the order of "demean, diminish, obscure or dismiss?"

No, those complaints of possible problems (all possible with the county's present plan, by the way) do not confuse and lump NO with MOVE, and are focused on potential issues possible with any sewer plant.

And when I say the deliberate lumping of NO with MOVE did a terrible disservice to the people of Los Osos it's, in part, this: When you portray a whole town as a bunch of provacative, deliberate,rebellion-minded, snoot-cocking scofflaws who absolutly OPPOSE any sewer you create a "frame" and false image (branding) of a whole community in the minds of, for example, regulators who don't take the time to find out the truth of the matter, since that takes time and effort and they're not about to do that, and instead believe (falsely) that this is a town that must be punished and set an example of, publicly hammered because that's what you do to a town full of criminals and scoflaws. The cry of "fine the CSD out of existence" resulted in real people being harmed, all of which was totally unnecessary IF the lazy RWQCB members had bothered to listen and pay attention (ditto the State Water Board itself) that the issue wasn't NO, it was a not unreasonable "MOVE," all of which could have been accomplished with very little drama had the powers that be not been deliberately and repeatedly misled into mistaking NO with MOVE and so acted on the wrong frame.

That was the tragedy here. And it's still in play even now, as you can see from Ron's very funny (but sad and deadly accurate) comment above. That's the damage that can be done by false branding and framing.

Ann, correct me if I am wrong, but I am trying to parse out all the meaning in your last post.

Ann's premise:False branding only came from the Tri-W bunch, but the Move-the-Sewer's were merely pointing out flaws.

So - to follow that logic, the "false branding" pointed out by the Tri-W bunch about "the Moves" - such as, "You'll lose the loan," "The Water Board isn't fooling," "The CSD will go bankrupt" were Ann's version of false branding - but gee, they actually came TRUE! No, that really moves those statements right into the "flaw" category. No Sewer scores 3 points on the reality scale.

Ann's premise:"When you portray a whole town as a bunch of provacative, deliberate, rebellion-minded, snoot-cocking scofflaws who absolutly OPPOSE any sewer…"

WHO portrayed us that way? WHEN did that happen? Wasn't it AFTER the loan was lost? Lisa, at the WB hearing when asked what the plan was - said there was NO PLAN - well, just what is an even semi-rational person supposed to make of that statement ? "She means well, she just momentarily forgot what the plan was," - "She doesn't really have one but maybe they can formulate one and get the SRF folks to give the $$ back?" NO! If you are serious enough to stop a project, you'd better know where you are going - to NOT do that makes you out to be - what - disingenuous? A "snoot-cocking scofflaw" seems far more accurate. I'd give a 50/50 on "Move" or "No" here. We might have a benefit of a doubt here due to simple stupidity.

**** Sewer moving mid-project has actually happened before - but apparently that is not all they wanted! A new location! AND a new collection system! AND a new type of treatment! So it really wasn't just "Move," was it? (Remember Ripley? His plan was TOTALLY different!)*****

Ann's premise: "…regulators who don't take the time to find out the truth of the matter…" -- but they DID find out the truth - You are making it like there should be excuses for what the Lisa board did. The town did NOT comply with the regulations - it's simple!! The project was stopped, the loan lost - NO way to move ahead due to a willful bankruptcy -- that IS THE TRUTH and we DO look like idiots. I think we just have to own up to it.

Speaking of "…the work done by the alphabet soup groups LOTTF, etc.…" "Work," um - don't you mean LAWSUITS? Did they win even ONE of those lawsuits? Other than a change in location, which "flaws" that those groups pointed out - have been called flaws in the current project? Other than Condition 97, what did the Coastal Commission want changed? If they didn't like what they saw, wouldn't they - you know - while they had pen in hand, just have added in EVERYTHING that they didn't like? What do you think?

Interesting that now the sewer HAS been moved, there are still a boatload of problems with the current plan according to some of the "alphabet soupers." Ann, which sewer plan is the perfect one that represents what Al, Lisa, Julie, Gail and Chuck want - that is based in REALITY? This is how the term "anti sewer" gets created and used. If no sewer is good enough - that can actually get built (and there is a blind eye for years of continued pollution which brings up its own set of doubts about REALLY wanting a sewer…) - it kind of stinks -- you've got to admit -- of "No-Sewer."

sewertoons, why are you so obsessed with seeing this community get its come-uppance? Maybe if you had been here for the whole affair you might have a better understanding of why we do what we do.12+ years have been wasted since the invasion of Tri-W. And yet you and others still talk about it like it is a viable option.I think the fact that someone has the word "sewer" in their handle, obsesses night and day about the sewer, blogs everywhere about the sewer, must have a vested interest in the sewer. I would find it hard to believe that this persons interest would lie solely on the concern of pollution. We have been allegedly polluting for nearly 30 years now and that person still moves into the polluted area? To me, this person is just another cog in the works.Sincerely, M

You, Lynette, clearly illustrate Ann's take of false branding. I can just copy and paste your posts into a PDF, upload it and do a play-by-play analysis of how hypocritical you are -- but I have better things to do.

In early 2006, Sharon Fredericks spoke at public comment outside the LOCSD offices. She was the first to setup the correlation between "anti Tri-W" and "anti-sewer," and she was the first to publicly state that those who were in favor of the recall were also in favor of not having a sewer because there was no other viable, affordable solution to a gravity collection system at Tri-W.

Then hostilities in the community morphed into hysteria amongst the Save the Dream group to a point that people actually believed that the "anti Tri-W" -- who were secretly "anti-sewer" -- were actually in favor of polluting the groundwater with their septics, causing more health hazards that could one day make Los Osos inhabitable. Gordon Hensley, Richard LeGros and Joyce Albright exploited that hysteria, catered to the illogical fallacy that their opposition was in favor of doing nothing. Out of apparent spite for the opposition, they formed Taxpayers Watch and used the public waste suits as a wedge issue to add legitimacy to their blind rage.

You can see the fallacy in motion if you read Barbara Wolcott's "Small Town Perfect Storm" where she compares the sewer situation in Los Osos to the unsanitary pollution going on in the city of Ur in ancient Sumer. With the assistance of subjective analysis by people like Lynette, Joyce, Richard and Gordon, she was able to put the comparison in context, further demolishing the character of the "UltraOpposition" as filthy barbarians who were satisfied with the status quo.

Having said that, if you look at Lynette's post above mine, she vaguely takes a step back, doesn't look at the specific concerns raised by what she now calls the "alphabet soupers" (Maria Kelly often refers to them as "blockers" now, hence more false branding) and she puts them in the category of "No-Sewer" because their ideal solutions are not based on reality. Solutions have been presented that are based in the realm of reality, but -- I'll repeat this one more time -- the County has not allowed people to present that solution to the best of their ability.

M, I think a lot of us had no idea what we were getting into when we bought here. I knew nothing of the pollution, just that there was a sewer problem in getting one built.

Tri-W is a socially infeasible option, and although I know it would work, I am backing the County's plan, as is, with no further conditions. We missed out on the cheap project in the 80's, there is NO WAY we should lose this chance now.

I can't see how you can condemn me for "talking sewer" when Ann and ron have spent years and many thousands of words more, obsessing over it. I feel that your singling me out merely illustrates that you do not agree with my position.

I think that there is PLENTY of blame to go around on how this happened, but nothing can be done to fix the past. I merely want to illustrate that there is no one "bad guy," i.e Taxpayers' Watch or the Water Board. Others have opined long and hard on their take of this situation, and Ann is gracious enough to allow all opinions on her site, even those that she may disagree with.

I want the County's project to move ahead, and feel that despite the many grievances as evidenced in the numerous appeals to the Coastal Commission, they will not stall out this project.

M, when you say "allegedly polluting," you do not understand the degree of pollution we have here. Why do you think we have saltwater intrusion in the lower aquifer? We cannot use the upper one anymore, it is too polluted to drink.

Toonces sez:"Ann, which sewer plan is the perfect one that represents what Al, Lisa, Julie, Gail and Chuck want - that is based in REALITY?"

Can't speak to "perfect plan," but does anybody remember The Process? The Process promised by the County that would let the best technology, the best project and best plan float to the top, so to speak, without fear and favor, without shortlisting, without monkeywrenching, without thumbs on the scale? Ah, yes, The Process was designed to get us the best plan. Gee, whatever happened to that?

Aaron sez:"You can see the fallacy in motion if you read Barbara Wolcott's "Small Town Perfect Storm" . . . " Barbara didn't "get it," which was kinda funny when you think of it. Worse, I don't think she wanted to "get it." I mean, you can't possibly write a book about The Los Osos Sewer Saga and NOT interview Lisa Schicker or Ron Crawford or Dan Blesky or Gail McPherson or . . . . Impossible. Absolutely impossible.

...what really "stinks" is the "public" input into the technical project process... as if there was any truly informed sewer engineering/legal experts coming out of Los Osos or it's various blogs...

...no matter how well meaning, all that really happens when the uninformed/mis-informed/emotional, self-serving, personal agenda, public is involved is delay or attempts to delay the entire process... and added costs to the property owners of the community...

Public input into the technical project process is required by law. Ever heard of the Brown Act?

As I looked into the history of the Los Osos sewer, I noticed there were experts who once lived in LO or came to LO to discuss how problematic the RWQCB's handling of the sewer was, but they were ignored or were told to have a nice day.

I've spoken to quite a few of these experts who felt the LOCSD locked themselves out of alternatives after the Blakeslee compromise and that the County -- after AB2701 was signed into law -- had already established that gravity collection would be found in every project scope scenario. The experts were dismayed and they gracefully bowed out of LO to focus on projects that would have a greater chance of success for them.

What they provided for Los Osos was far from "uninformed" and emotional. Their studies and analysis were constructive, insightful. At the very least, their analysis created doubt that the self-proclaimed omniscient entity -- known as the water board -- knew what they were really doing, but Resolution 83-13 would effectively stonewall the debate to bring innovation to the process.

The anger at the people for speaking about the technical project process is misplaced. Even though most of the blog commenters here are not certified sewer engineers, we possess the uncanny ability -- as individuals with strongly held opinions, living in a town with the sewer controversy for more than 20 years -- to ask questions, seek answers and research the reasoning behind those answers.

The time that has been spent on generalizing the opposition as simply "delaying" the process could be spent on reviewing the materials of the opposition to understand where they're coming from. For all the years I've spent reading what people had to say online, I have not seen a proper, thorough analysis from people like "Mike," who often opt out of that discussion to focus on... character attacks. And why?

"Aaron, it's been talked about hundreds of times before," said Richard LeGros to me while we sat in his house, overlooking the Prohibition Zone several months ago. "Nothing more really needs to be said -- it's just that these people don't seem to 'get it.'" Get what? The fact that you and your supporters have spent generous amounts of time in giving the "obstructionists" the proverbial middle finger more than creating opportunities to meet with the opposition at the bargaining table to reach a consensus? Oh, I get that part just fine.

I'm not going to tell you that the all of the "opposition" has the purest of intentions, but if you can move past the petty politics, the false branding, the name-calling and the violence, you will find information that is surprisingly quite compelling.

Tell us all about how wonderful that "alternative" Reclamator" has turned out...

...and as for name calling and your one-sided view of the contraversy Mr. Aaron, YOU did your share pre-recall...!!!! Please, let's don't let you simply trying to sweep those long, long CSD meetings and the vile remarks and threats made against those legally elected Directors...!!!! Those same individuals continue this day to parade before the BOS in their campaign to do everything they can to delay any sewer...

Thankfully the sewer project was taken from the CSD and is now in the hands of an agency who has more weight in local government than the LOCSD...

...but Aaron, I will never forget the vileness of the LO "public" toward some very dedicated and HONEST leaders of this community... I have learned from the Gails and Lisas, Anns, Aarons, Als and Joeys... so don't stick your nose in the air and act offended when you are show the mirror of your own actions...!!!!

The Reclamator was essentially a hoax, but the Reclamator isn't the sole alternative that has been presented for the past 5-10 years.

Since you keep saying that I "name-called," made vile remarks and threats against the pre-recall board, I would like you to take the opportunity to back up your claims. I'll help you out. Here is the SLO-SPAN web site. Clicking on the link will take you to their archive of city council and CSD meetings including the Los Osos CSD. The archive consists of MP3s from each meeting since February 17, 2000.

The comments I've made referring to the pre-recall board are found in the July through September 2006 meetings. Good luck and let readers know what you find.

Oh, and while you're at it, you should find the "vileness" of what other people have said too. I'd love to hear your analysis.

...no comment needed... you just keep on digging and trying to justify your actions... You really hate to see the mirror of those who were so much less than civil in those pre-recall CSD meetings... Love your analysis of the Reclamator though... too bad your dad got sucked in by one of the snakeoil sales pitches...could have been the entire community... guess your dad ddin't listen to what the pre-recall directors had to say about that proposal...

Mike, I hate to have to do this again, but, I think you are still confusing between Aaron and me. I don't recollect Aaron being much around, prior to 2006. I said a fair share of bad stuff in early '05 pre recall (some of it in the "personal" realm), but I'm pretty sure I had toned down considerably by the time Aaron showed up to occasionally speak at CSD meetings. So I'm sure as quoted from Aaron's above "The comments I've[Aaron] made referring to the pre-recall board are found in the July through September 2006 meetings." (and since) Are his.As for me, I stopped it (the personal stuff, don't recollect "threats") because my focus was then developing to more technical, because the Post Recall CSD was not delivering, Because in my interactions with State Agencies I noticed they were tuning out the negative speakers, because it clearly wasn't working for any one else either (but many persisted).And because I was elected to LOCAC and took the responsibility of "representing the whole community" seriously. And because "I'm not going to hate my neighbors". By now I've had plenty of opportunities and spoken aplenty casually and technically to just about everybody identified in Taxpayers watch, Pre recall board (not as much Mr. Gustafson); on a variety of subjects.Incidentally, non seemed uncomfortable and non requested an apology. So you won't be getting one.

Aaron, while we wait, maybe you can explain how you think desalination works into the water plan for Los Osos.

When you say, "The experts were dismayed and they gracefully bowed out of LO to focus on projects that would have a greater chance of success for them."

Do you mean that they are wimps, or that they only care about their bottom line?? You are referring to SALESMEN, right? Or at least people with the PROFIT motive driving their agendas, not academics or employees with no profit for themselves, right?

Then this statement:"The anger at the people for speaking about the technical project process is misplaced. Even though most of the blog commenters here are not certified sewer engineers, we possess the uncanny ability -- as individuals with strongly held opinions, living in a town with the sewer controversy for more than 20 years -- to ask questions, seek answers and research the reasoning behind those answers."

Well, Aaron, some of us have done that and have concluded that gravity really is best for Los Osos. It's NOT JUST the County finding that. Not everyone has to chime in, but every property owner was given the choice to make a selection -- and gravity won. Accept it. Just like we have had to accept that measure B, indeed, did WIN.

I know you get it and have moved to a different level, but there still are the activists with axes to grind and games to play... You don't owe anyone an apology, but the CSD5 does owe the community an apology for the financial mismanagement that brought the bankruptcy... They still are campaigning and cheerleading for some war against government responsibility... We would have had a working sewer by now had not the CSD5 not halted that very legal project... Why should those of us who will now have to shoulder the extra costs created by the delays ever forget those who turned their backs on the whole community just for their own move the sewer agenda...????

Still waiting on your analysis, Mike. Those MP3s are there. If you want to know when I spoke exactly, you can do a California Public Records Request of minutes from 2005 and 2006 that have my name mentioned. Then you can download the MP3s of the meeting dates that I spoke at.

If you're going to attack my character, do it right. And try to get your "facts" right. Ed never endorsed the Reclamator. The ROCK never endorsed the Reclamator. Telling readers or implying that we did so is an act of deceit, not a misunderstanding. I previously posted a correction, but the claim continues to be circulated.

I believe that Mrs. Tornatzky owes a sincere apology to Dr. John Alexander, Wade Brimm, Glenn Stillman, Dr. Tom Ruehr and many others who went to Los Osos without a product to sell, without a profit motive "driving their agendas." On a related note, Tom Ruehr's family was not very thrilled with the rather tasteless comments you made about him after he passed away. Maybe you should stop putting your foot in your mouth, Lynette.

I'm fully accepting of what has happened. I'm aware of the County decision, but at the same time, I believe people should understand why we are in this situation today. I'm not here to change anyone's mind or change how the process is managed. I'm here to point out the problems for educational purposes -- something that you or Mike refuse to do.

Thanks, Mike.I (based on our prior contacts within this blog) didn't think you were asking for one (an apology) but it did behoove me to phrase it that way.

Toons; I would have to say that GRAVITY at this point is the ONLY option on the table. That makes it both worst and best by definition. It definitely could not be pushed off, by shenanigans played out in the press. I think an argument could still be made, and is still being made, though how to overcome homeowner resistance is a mystery to me. I’m not supporting STEP at this time, though I will be appealing to the Coastal Commission’s language in condition 97. I’m saying this because I see a very slim possibility of the STEP argument worded in a way that I may be compelled to support it (I will be unlikely to have that occasion anyway because of the limited scope of appeals from the action of Nov 24). So far the pro STEP arguments at this stage (Appeals), are in my view repetitive, and will not get far.

While I have noted on occasion to government agencies that "speakers before me have displayed a high quality of public comment", the opposite is also true. I was a member of the Post Recall CSD’s Committees and saw a good political/functional choice in including people from “their” opposition (Such as John Perkins, since passed). As the committee’s met they were managed poorly and Al Barrow was able to waste Committee time with his own agendas. (I don’t blame Al, just the board who I told “The Committees are your power”)Los Osos still has a reserve of experts who stayed out, wisely, as the committees (environmental is my best example) deteriorated.

The handling of experts (before 2701) was similarly unprofessional. Dr. Wickham was available and “Produced by Al” but as soon as the real stuff was to take place, Al took over the research, got his face on channel 20, etc… Where is Dr. Wickham now? He was very disappointed with the (post recall) CSD.

So if they were community members, not salesmen - like Ripley and Orenco, why did they not continue to put forth their opinions like the other "we are not polluting" and "I have a box that will clean the water" citizens? What made them fade away?

I have no idea who Wade Brimm (I have heard the name though) or Glenn Stillman are, so why should I apologize as I have never mentioned their names?

Maybe you will grace this blog with your answer to my question - how does desal play into Los Osos water management? You put it out there but never explained what you meant other than a Wikipedia reference to the desal process.

I can't answer that question because, as Mike put it, I'm "simply a young person with an active imagination and no education or experience to be seen as believable," even though that statement comes from an anonymous person who often makes up things and makes hundreds of readers laugh at him at his expense.

If you don't know who those people are and what they've done, then don't generalize about the experts. It's interesting that you don't know about them given that you once told me that you read The ROCK. Not surprised that you lied about that too.

If I were you, I'd stop posting -- and spend some time educating yourself before you make the hole you dug for yourself deeper.

So anybody that suggest anything but an conventional sewer plant with a gravity collection system is a snake oil salesman?We know what that system was going to cost us at Tri-W. We haven't got a clue what any other system or site will cost. Why is that?Mike, Mike, Mike, you creep me out every time you bring up the rude treatment of your beloved CSD directors. They were big boys. They could take it. They had to considering what they tried to do to us. I didn't attend meetings, but I did watch them on TV. Has there ever been an elected group before that paid as little attention to the wants and needs of this community than the one in those meetings? You would hear speaker after speaker plead "no!!!", and they would vote yes.Speaking of looking back at archives, look at right after the recall when several Tri-W supporters spoke of how Tri-W wasn't their first choice, but at least we would be moving forward.Not2010yet likes to rail about the Katrina like effect Lisa, Julie, and the others had on this community. I guess that would make Stan and Richard and Gordon the hurricane itself and Lisa and Julie the Bush administration trying to clean up after it. Sincerely, M

No, not everybody is a snake oil salesman. But if you are pushing hard to get the job, you will promote your "product," even if it is not the best fit for LO.

M, the approximate costs have been delineated all along. Yes, they are approximate, but outside of buying or building, how do you know the EXACT costs? It isn't do-able on this project or any other project.

I'm sure many causes have speaker after speaker saying something one way or another - but numbers of speakers are not the majority, nor do they have to be right in what they want.

No, I didn't. When Dr. Alexander was interviewed for The ROCK, he never pitched to us his product nor did he say that the Agglutinator was the best and only solution for Los Osos. He was not actively selling his wares.

Even if he did, does that automatically lower the credibility of his analysis? Not at all. It's true that a lot of salesmen will fudge facts and data to make their system appear more functional than the competition, but the facts and the issues are what matters.

Since you appear to generalize that all the experts in support of the opposition, consider this. Applying your logic of broad strokes, Bruce Gibson and Paavo Ogren are also salesmen. Years before STEP/STEG was removed from the design-build process, both men included gravity as the essential project component in all project scope evaluations. When Mr. Ogren talked about having the best technology floating to the surface, he most certainly didn't refer to the type of collection system.

Look at you. You're selling readers the County project. You're a saleswoman for the County. Even though you're ridiculously wrong most of the time and you ignore the obvious faults of the process and its respective counterarguments, you appear here almost daily, telling us that the County project is going to happen and that we should just "get over it." So I guess it's beneficial for you to say that all the experts -- even those you've never heard of -- are salesmen so the spotlight moves away from you when you're selling.

And that's why I don't like the whole "salesmen" argument either. Null and void. Got anything better to say?

Wait a second... did you just say that I was selling something? Selling that the County's project is "bad"? I thought we were talking about the credibility of experts in light of the fact that some of the experts -- which you once threatened to dispute (haven't seen any refutations since you made that threat about a year ago) -- not about selling ideas and discussion points.

For the record, I'm not selling any products. I'm not selling any specific plans. The only concrete plan that I've fully embraced with the Los Osos Sustainability Group's water conservation plan. That's what makes your comeback so incredible. It's so far-fetched.

Poor little Aaron... just can't comprehend that he could ever be challenged or ever be wrong... just another shill trying to divert blame for the failures of the Move-the-Sewer to ever produce a viable Plan even with all their experts...

Inspite of the vile opposition to the legal and fully permitted Tri-W Plan, you have to admit that the pre-recall folks did actually produce a legal Plan... and just a tidbit, the pre-recall folks did listen and did consider a full range of alternative technologies and locations... you'll just have to research back over eight years to the preliminary studies...which were discussed and decided against in view of the laws and regulation they had to work with... and by now we would have had a legal and working sewer...!!!

Did the Move-the Sewer folks ever produce a Plan...??? Did they ever obtain even a single permit for any Plan...???

Did the pre-recall folks ever file a municipal bankruptcy...??? Did the post-recall folks ever resolve their self-created bankruptcy...???

If there ever was a "best" or "better" alternative, why isn't it being constructed by now...??? If there ever was a "best" or "better" alternative, don't you think it would have risen through all the scrutiny by now...???

Toonces sez:"Do you mean that they are wimps, or that they only care about their bottom line?? You are referring to SALESMEN, right? Or at least people with the PROFIT motive driving their agendas, not academics or employees with no profit for themselves, right?"

Corollo Engineering, MWH, Ripley, all the engineering firms on the County's short list and about a bazillion more are all "for profit" companies and all have "salesman" in their companies. This is somehow a bad thing?? If you're a for-profit company and you're told -- sotto voce -- or can read the hand-writing on the wall that a deal is already done and you're clearly NOT even going to be allowed to compete on a level playing field, you can't afford to stay and fight, you move on. Your product may be best for the community, but if the deal's done, it won't matter. It's just business. Has nothing to do with "wimps."

I don't recall seeing anyone from Corollo or MWH pushing their services before the BOS or Planning Commission. Unlike Ripley for instance. How about that cut-a-way step tank Orenco dragged down to Farmer's Market - where was a display of cut-a-way gravity piping?

I guess it is useless to try and show the difference to people who don't want to see.

Ripley WAS represented in the playing field by the Lyles Group. They just didn't make the cut, as other teams presented better. That was a fair competition, and had that team thought that they had been unfairly not included, they would have protested.

Mike, I have yet to actually be challenged. If you have a point that hasn't already been clarified many times before, bring it on.

REPOST:

LOS OSOS GROUP LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE SEEKING FEDERAL ACTION TO STOP COUNTY SEWER

A group of Los Osos citizens have launched a new online publication, The Los Osos Sentinel, to stop the County’s plan to build a central sewer system in Los Osos. The new website (http://www.lososossentinel.com) is on a mission not only to better inform the community on the deep roots of the Los Osos central sewer project -- but to rally the community to fight back in federal court. Click here to read the article.http://www.rockofthecoast.com/news/newswire/856-los-osos-group-launches-new-website-seeking-federal-action-to-stop-county-sewer

ARE YOU HAVING SEWER PROBLEMS??

You are not alone. You are just the latest victim of the State Water Board’s “Scam of the Century.” Read about the test case of tortured Los Osos and how other small towns up and down the coast are suffering from septic shock, as rogue Regional Water Boards statewide cry pollution without proof so they can replace working septic tanks with spill-prone, unnecessary and excessively expensive central sewers -- and force a select group of homeowners to pay for it. Don’t be fooled. Open your eyes and learn the facts before you find yourself paying $500 a month to fix a “problem” that never really existed in the first place -- or has been falsely and conveniently attributed to all septics. The whole story of the “Sewer Scam,” how it works and what’s happening today is so incredible that unless you start reading The ROCK right now it will be far, far too late to do anything about it in time.Click on "Read Article" to access the vital information in these classic, indispensable articles, reports and expert interviews.» Read Articlehttp://www.rockofthecoast.com/news/state/855-are-you-having-sewer-problems

Sorry I...Lynette like MIKE little mouse lose ever ytime they use stupidity in their presentation.Shills suck wind when trying to defend the indefensible.

Why was vacuum collection never studied? (Removing Paavo...)

Disclaimer: I don't work with or for any collection companies.

For such a simple to go unanswered speaks volumes which will lead to problems later in "the process."With the current “undertow” in politics, I wouldn’t want to be someone who intentionally “hid the ball.”

With a decision this bad – one that is receiving scorn across the country from angry Americans of all political backgrounds – one might hope that Team Obama would come to its senses and reverse course. Not likely.

When announcing this preposterous decision Holder stated, "To the extent that there are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps."

Frankly, sir, the grisly images of Beslan are a little too fresh in our minds to be overly concerned with your personal political consequences. We're a bit more concerned about the potentially deadly consequences this ragingly incompetent administration may have just brought on innocent American citizens.

Vice President Joe Biden once criticized Barack Obama's lack of preparedness for the serious responsibilities associated with the job of president by saying that the presidency was "not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." God forbid that we're about to see just how right he was.

If Bud can move federal legislation with his Los Osos Sentinel, he will need to be more organized than his letter writing to contractors and he will need some really deep pockets to fund that campaign... The Sentinel is a bigger joke than the Rock...

Neither want to acknowledge that there really is another point of view... but oh well, it keeps them from standing on street corners begging for beer money...

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Sorry W-Mark, The Conversation has moved on to the Snakes and Ladders, Wells and pipes,Heroes and Villains SiteA site so comprehensive (Wade Brim, etc..)that it is only lacking; Charlton "When they pry these stone tablets from my cold, dead hands" Heston

Neither want to acknowledge that there really is another point of view...

This statement is also false. The ROCK has interviewed Shirley Bianchi, Pandora Nash-Karner and Jerry Gregory ("One Year From Now," Match 2006). We have also tried to contact others who ultimately declined to comment. In February 2007, we interviewed Maria Kelly, Pandora Nash-Karner and Lynette Tornatzky ("Affordability... Is It Even an Issue Anymore?"). Others have been contacted but declined to comment.

Aaron, your promoting a website (one which you probably designed using Joomla!), that is trying to cob together the money to STOP the County's sewer, seems to me to be selling the idea that the County's project is bad - (you are an opinion writer, not a reporter, remember?).

I'm not involved with the site. The ROCK posted an article about The Sentinel because it was a site that was brought to our attention a short while ago and it was provocative -- something we can't ignore. Also, I don't use Joomla anymore. I use Wordpress (The Razor).

I'm not familiar with R.I.C.O. enough to make a definitive statement of whether I support it or not. What I can tell you is that the events that are cataloged on the site show -- at best -- plenty of negligence, but with the statute of limitations, not much can be done now.

Not familiar enough to support it or not?? Do you want to try to stop the County project - which these people do -- or you do not! You don't need to know about R.I.C.O. to give an answer - and whether the negligence is timely enough, either. It is INTENT. Do you support their intent or not?

(What do you write then - commentary? What does Maria have to do with this?)

I will kindly say this one more and I won't repeat it again. I want the County project to abide by the law, the California Constitution. If compliance means that the project must start at square one, then it has to start at square one. If compliance means that only a few modifications need to be made, let those modifications go through.

I write whatever I want to write. Put me in a label and I'll give you this one.

Well I"m back Incidentally W-Mark I didn't post the Annie Lennox video, in direct response to your comments. (1 minute between our postings is a lot faster than I can type)But the death spiral of our larger economy is not all that fascinating.What is the value of an edifice built on a house of cards. We deal mostly in derivitive information here.Nice Jeffersonionisems, but even anarchies are just another establishment.

The Sentinal is just another wall of words, a good magnum opus of a specific individual's take on their experience.The Timeline is still 2002 in that world.W.Verif;sainge; Santo sangria, I was hoping for "dangle".

Toonces sez:"How about that cut-a-way step tank Orenco dragged down to Farmer's Market - where was a display of cut-a-way gravity piping?"

I would call that "information." And if it were presented in a public workshop, I'd call that public workshop information & etc. You know, like Corollo Engineering had a table at the County's Public Info Workshop over in the Jr. Hi some time ago? Along with other public information tables there.

Even if [Dr. Alexander] did [as a "SALESMAN"], does that automatically lower the credibility of his analysis? Not at all. It's true that a lot of salesmen will fudge facts and data to make their system appear more functional than the competition, but the facts and the issues are what matters.

You guys are so 2008,I do believe the STEP Gravity Coulda/Shoulda had been firmly settled at the Outset of TAC. The Cut away Tank on the East side of farmers market was balanced by Don Bearden’s presentation to the West. There was no misrepresentation of intent, by either. One of my friends recently tagged along with his Ride while the group went through COSTCO and lunched on free cocktail wienies and lobster tails. Let me open up the door to something you may already know. Everybody knows the score (well, on that side of L.O. Valley Road they do)The Alternative-Alternative-Technology Symposium (Where the cutaway appeared, TAC Also?) was held by Al Barrow with the support of Surfrider Los Osos Chapter, and took place within a CSD election season.Al didn’t run because he had no seed monies. In the middle of election season the monies appeared for the symposium. He even had enough monies to get his CASE website back online for a couple of months. While the symposium was successful and “Informational” and Al managed to “hold it together” it also had the consequence of the “Kiss of Death” transferring to the last chance for Alternative technology.Guilt by association. Oh and by the way, did anyone else notice that Orenco’s letters to Al During the PC hearings addressed it as “Your Project”, must be a codicil in AB2701 somewhere transferring the project to him. And again I’m not blaming him, he is who he is. When you are on a listing wooden ship flying the Jolly Roger and being chased around a shallow bay by the sleek Impounded powerboats of the State Interdiction forces, do you not throw a rope over the LOOSE CANNON ON DECK?And at the risk of being 86’d for reposting within the same string; It’s right here-Moving on, Heya ho, moving on. Every body is selling something...Some of them want to financially abuse you, some of them want to own your mind, woooh ooh oh, wo ooh hoo hoo-oo

Aaron, do you realize that you are not asking me to do something, but telling me? Is that any way to get a person to do something for you when you have no power over them at all? You might want to re-think your approach.

I'm not changing subjects, just coming up with new ones as you are avoiding engaging in discussing the ones I already stated.

I don't believe in Alexander's test results or the methods that got him there. I am asking if you know of any other tests that back up his conclusions. I ask because you SEEM to support him. If you do not support him or do not know the answers, just say so. But if you do support him, and there is other evidence out there - evidence that is CURRENT, you would be the person to ask, or you might know someone whom I should ask.

There. I think I have explained my reasons for asking. If you support Alexander, you might already have done that research. If you care to share, do so. If not, please state that you decline and I will stop asking.

Yes, I am telling you to do something. I'm giving you a reminder that's based on a comment you made to me a year ago. You wrote, "I will disprove the experts," but now you tell me that you don't know who Wade Grimm and Glenn Stillman is. Several months ago, you insulted Tom Ruehr after he passed away. Now, you're hammering on the experts for being "salesmen."

I think that's wrong. I find it wrong that they are not here to defend themselves. You have a problem with these people once they've walked away from Los Osos or if they're dead.

If you're going to say you're going to do something, do it. This isn't an issue of "power," this is a matter of holding you accountable -- and if you don't like me pointing this out to you, then I have some news for you, ma'am. Taxpayers Watch is losing footing in Los Osos because of you, because of your false branding, your pathological lying and your complete disregard for everyone around you.

You're just NOW reminding me to back up some statement that I supposedly made a YEAR ago? Lame excuse to not answer a question. Your off -topic deflections are not fooling anyone, you really don't want to answer, do you?

Where did I say that I thought Wade Brimm (not Grimm) or Glenn Stillman were experts? That's apparently YOUR classification, but it is not mine - I mean - who are they? Has their research come up in any current reports for this sewer? I'm not hammering them, so why do they need to defend themselves?

I think you don't understand what I meant about power. Your only hope of getting answers is persuasion. Insults have the opposite effect.

What "footing" do you think TW has? They are in a closed door settlement phase in the bankruptcy, which has nothing to do with citizen involvement, so what do you refer to exactly? (Really, as insults go, you need to do a little better than that IMHO, as this doesn't even make sense.)

I stand up and say I believe the County's reports. If you believe what Brimm, Stillman and Alexander say, why don't YOU stand up and say so?

One more post before Colbert Report. At least Colbert knows he's a joke.

Also, thank you for correcting my typo. Allow me to return the favor and correct you.

As I recall, Mrs. Tornatzky, every time the opposition invoked the word "expert," you've responded by saying, "Oh, you mean the SALESMEN?" and your scope of references were limited to that of Dana Ripley and Tom Murphy, two known figures who stood by their respective products. As I read your comments about those two, you don't state specifically why you don't agree with them -- just that they're "salesmen." Let's conveniently forget that Montgomery Watson-Harza are also salesmen. Let's conveniently forget that each contractor in the design-build RFQ is selling their product, their technology, their ideas. Using your logic, I can say -- when it comes to the process -- "Trust no one." I can't trust Carollo because they use MWH-based statistics. I can't trust Paavo Ogren. He was on a design team that competed with MWH back before he became Interim GM of the LOCSD in 1999. He was selling something then. Let's throw the good ol' boys out of the room. They're salesmen! Oh wait, what's that? You support them? Ah, I understand. That's real swell. Hypocritical? Just a little bit.

Now, even though you never mentioned Wade Brimm and Glenn Stillman, the position you've taken is that all the opposition's experts are "salesmen" without once providing a shred of evidence supporting the claim that Los Osos septic tanks are the primary cause of pollution. As an academic/legal researcher, I find it alarming that you feel you have the tenacity to state repeatedly that these professionals are just selling something and therefore -- without once mentioning why you disagree with any of them with documentation -- their opinions ought to be disregarded.

While your comments aren't defamatory in a legal sense, you are defaming professionals by marginalizing their opinions and contributions to a label without ever justifying why they deserve that label -- and when you don't allow them to defend themselves, when you don't contact them to find out more about where they're coming from, you come across as arrogant and foolish. How come I have to pull out the data and you just sit here, making a mockery of those who care? Why should I have to answer your questions when you don't answer them? Why should we listen to you when you don't listen to us? Why should we exert the effort to listen?

Taxpayers Watch... nothing to do with citizen involvement... except having the word "taxpayer" in the name. Brilliant! Just brilliant. I'll just form a non-profit organization that sounds like I'm representing a bunch of people and I'll find something to sue you for. See? I'm watching taxpayers. Way to go, champ.

The truth can be insulting. Pathological liar? Yes, you are one. Sorry to break the news to you. Seriously, I could write a book that's equivalent in pages to The Bible and document all your deceitful comments. Three minutes at LOCSD public comment would not be enough time to tell the people of Los Osos about how deceitful and rude you are. Behind the smile and wave is a person whose heart is as dark as night.

Having that said, I believe in the testimony provided by the experts. I believe in Brimm's 1997 SLO Nitrate Study. I believe Stillman's assessment that Brown & Caldwell did a poor job in constructing the groundwater monitoring (illegal) wells in 1982, the very same wells that the RWQCB based their pollution claims on. I believe in Dr. Ruehr's 1994 Los Osos-Baywood Park Nitrogen Study. I believe in the alternatives that Dr. Alexander, well-known member of President Ronald Reagan’s Science Advisory Commission, recommended to then-supervisor Bud Laurent. I believe in them.

You believe in the County's reports? Good for you. I believe in facts.

Aaron sez:"Having that said, I believe in the testimony provided by the experts. I believe in Brimm's 1997 SLO Nitrate Study. I believe Stillman's assessment that Brown & Caldwell did a poor job in constructing the groundwater monitoring (illegal) wells in 1982, the very same wells that the RWQCB based their pollution claims on."

What was so telling is when these illegally capped wells were reported to the county, and the RWQCB, the RWQCB said That's the County's problem, and the county said, So? So much for "science" and "following the law." That's what's made this whole saga so amazing. Selective science. Selective laws. Selective "truth." All done under color of "law" and "science," with all kinds of interesting thumbs on the scales.And all the result of failing to treat the issues as a basinwide water/waste problem. Thus fudging the data, ignoring illegal wells, ignoring complex or contradictory data were all caused by the need to defend the indefensible -- the foolish and aribitrary PZ. And lies begat lies until the whole thing grew, like Mopsey, into Mad Hatter World where up is down and fake is real and common sense flies out the window and CYA fear and the rush for the big bucks flies in. And a few homeowners get stuck with the bill.

Alon sez:"I do believe the STEP Gravity Coulda/Shoulda had been firmly settled at the Outset of TAC. The Cut away Tank on the East side of farmers market was balanced by Don Bearden’s presentation to the West. There was no misrepresentation of intent, by either."

More Tragedy of Los Osos. More thumbs on the scale. Remember the promised Process? That pleasant lie that the best technology will rise to the top? Fair competition in a fair design build process? Ah, yes. THAT promise. Right.

Alexander's recommended treatment process relies on the science of "electron scrambling". Since you believe in this perhaps you could explain it. His resume does not mention where he obtained his doctorate degree. Do you know?

Dr. Wickham's degree is in zoology and he is an expert on lobsters. He has wrtitten that his wasstewater treatment system, if widely adopted, could reverse golobal warming. Perhaps you could help us understand how this works too?

I'm a bit curious as to what "facts" Aaron has that support the "Pathological liar" statement. He has used that statement several times when he apparently can't handle any challenge to his ego.

C'mon Aaron, support your statement, or are you just another immature and uneducated kid trying to be the schoolyard bully...???

Maybe Aaron is the "Pathological liar" who can't stand to be challenged on his opinions (they certainly are not facts).... Maybe he ought to go to school and get a job before he tries to sound like he knows what he says/types...

I'll bet he thinks the PZLDF actually was supporting the entire LO community.... guess he is not the expert he thinks he is....

Aaron, I will ask again. Where are the recent studies that agree with Brimm's 1997 report. That report was done 12 years ago! Ancient history! I don't say Brimm and Stillman are selling themselves because they are not here pushing anything.

8 to 12 houses to an acre and you somehow manage to believe in magic sand! Amazing! Just amazing!

The best technology did rise to the top - gravity. Too bad it doesn't have the cool feature of needing an easement onto private property, thereby giving the No-Sewers another shot at killing the project!

And as to why 70 acres was not used for a pond? Ask the Farm Bureau what they think about that. Not gonna happen in this county! Most ponds are used as polishing ponds anyway, not primary treatment in order to get the nitrate levels down.

I don't recall MWH at any public gatherings plugging themselves - unlike Ripley and Orenco. Paavo "selling" something no one even remembers back in 1999? He was on a team that competed with MWH - that is relevant here - how?

Thanks for clarifying where you stand in all of this though. Your claim of being non-biased and neutral has been shot to pieces however.

Once again, your logic is flawed. If you're going to dismiss 10+ year old reports as ancient history, then you may want to reconsider your support of Resolution 83-13, which was passed in 1983 without any documented support of pollution. You may want to reconsider your support of the RWQCB's Basin Plan, which was drafted in 1982. So let me get this straight. You will accept 27-year-old allegations of pollution, but you think Brimm's report from 1997 is "ancient history"? Fascinating!

What makes you believe that I believe in "magic sand"? I've heard that term being thrown around when Dr. Ruehr's name is mentioned. Do you have a bachelor’s degree in agronomy, a master’s degree in agronomy and soil science. Did you receive a Ph.D. in that field? Did you ever receive the Distinguished Teaching Award from Cal Poly? Were you ever a charter member of the Environmental Biotechnology Institute? No? What's your background? Where have you worked? Not even Lou has those kind of credentials. All you got is a term you put in quotes as if you know what you're talking about. That's nice.

Post your wastewater credentials -- and that does not include reading Barbara Wolcott's book, attending board meetings and taking notes for Bruce Gibson.

The best technology rose to the top? I believe you were at the office hours when Paavo Ogren explained in great detail to me that gravity collection was the only technology that was ever considered by Public Works in their initial project scope evaluations dating back to the time when AB2701 was signed into law. The technology was already chosen before other technologies could rise to the top. You're telling readers that gravity went through the design-build process and it naturally floated to the top when competing with STEP/STEG? That's one lie.

No, MWH did not make public appearances plugging themselves, but they did donate $10,000 to Save the Dream, an organization that aimed to protect the seats of the three CSD directors who were recalled. While other salesmen and opportunists had public gatherings plugging themselves, MWH was the only group that actually invested money to a political campaign that supported their system and their plans. I noticed you didn't mention that little factoid in your previous post.

Let's not forget that even Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee was given $6,600 by Tim and Mary Barnard of Bozeman, Montana, owners of Barnard Construction, the firm that was contracted to build the sewer for Los Osos in 2005 (they are also sub-contractors of Montgomery Watson-Harza). This is the very same Assemblyman who forced the district's hand to accept his compromise, which had gravity collection out of town. The Blakeslee compromise served as the stepping stone for Public Works to proceed with that system even though Mr. Ogren assured the public that the best technology would float to the top.

About the whole "non-biased" and neutral thing... I learned that those who tout the label of being centrists are not centrists at all. Since 2005, I've repeatedly asked for information from Save the Dream and Taxpayers Watch. I can proudly say that I have listened extensively to both sides, something you haven't done... something you will never do.

WOW Aaron, feeling like you lost control and have been exposed as just another opinionated and immature kid...

"Post your wastewater credentials -- and that does not include reading Barbara Wolcott's book, attending board meetings and taking notes for Bruce Gibson."

WHERE ARE AARON'S CREDENTIALS...???? OH, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY....!!!!!!! He would have actually had to have gone to college, earned a degree and maybe gotten a job....????? Just all he really is, is a little pimple on the butt of the sewer concern... He does like to pop off like he had some control over those who disagree with his personal "opinions"...

Excuse me Aaron, "I learned that those who tout the label of being centrists are not centrists at all." . Though I understand that your focus and context is “Save the Dream” and “Taxpayers Watch”. There are those reading this, who may not know that I am a centrist, in the full sense of the word, as opposed to one who touts labels. Given that I have referred to myself as such, several times, (And by no means is that all that I am, more of a place marker), I would appreciate not receiving Side Splatter of Broad Brush Strokes.For example; "I learned that some who tout the label” would have served both our purposes. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Alon, you are one of a few who are very articulate in your assessments of opinions on both sides -- and thank you for that.

I want to clarify something in regards to my credentials and experience. As a centrist, Alon knows that I'm not a wastewater expert nor did I ever make the claim that I was one. In fact, I don't want to be an expert in that field. However, I am a researcher. Opinionated? Sure. Who isn't?

I put my faith in the experts and their credentials.

If you're still wondering, "What are Aaron's credentials?" The answer is simple. I'm a student. I like learning so I want to remain in the process of learning. Being a student is a lifelong process. I know that I don't know everything, and knowing that satisfies me. If only Lynette was more accepting of that way of thinking.

...in other words... you have no degree or experience... Only your opinions which you deliver in a stilted manner to puff yourself up to sound as if you were an expert.... and you get very huffy when challenged...

Anyone may call themself a "researcher", but unless that person has some serious training (such as completing a college degree), then they are only speculating as to the completness of the research and the validity of the results... Nothing that Aaron has attempted to articulate in his high and mighty manner would be considered complete or valid, merely pompus opinion...!!!!!

I don't know if you're trying to rile me up or -- in your words -- get "very huffy," but it's not working. I mean, these opinions are coming from an anonymous named "Mike," who has not once provided any insight that reflects his personal credentials.

I want to note to readers that there is no person -- who is 66 years old (age obtained from a previous comment "Mike" has made) -- in Los Osos, CA named "Mike" or Michael. According to veteran records, there is no 66-year-old veteran in Los Osos, CA who goes by the name of "Mike" or Michael (born between 1942-1944). This leads me to believe you're not actually "Mike" at all -- so here's my question. Why should readers take your comments seriously when you're being dishonest about who you really are? Why should readers take you seriously when all you've done is insult people who disagree with you?

Los Osos resident Ted Peterson once said to me that words have more meaning when they're spoken by someone who personally stands by their comments. If you're going to continue posting as "Mike," keep in mind that anonymous comments don't have as much priority for consideration as someone like Richard LeGros. Actually, scratch that. He's used multiple accounts for the sole purpose of casting character assassinations (InsideTheCSD, Gadfly, Thinker). Not a smart idea given that he once swore to serve the people that he's now insulting.

Sounds like you just don't think we are polluting. How can you believe this without believing in Magic Sand? 14,600 people are using the ground above the drinking water aquifers as a litter box - yet we are responsible for none of the pollution? No, you DO believe in Magic Sand!

83-13 is not relevant to any of this. How did I support it? I wasn't even here! Whatever the pollution levels were in 1983, it is different now. If we didn't need a sewer 30 years ago, we do now.

You are aware that emerging contaminants from body care products, drugs and spermicides are also found in our upper aquifer, so how can you say that none of the nitrates found there are NOT from the 8 to 12 homes per acre on septics? You are aware that we used to be able to drink from the upper aquifer, and now we can't. Did suddenly the nitrates from ancient forests or prairies full of horses let loose to make that happen?

Neither you nor I have degrees in soil science, but that is irrelevant to what we believe. I chose to believe that 14,600 humans are polluting the water we drink and I guess you do not.

Maybe you can explain how "MWH was the only group that actually invested money to a political campaign that supported their system and their plans" matters? Wasn't the recall successful? How did that money get us to gravity now?

"This is the very same Assemblyman who forced the district's hand to accept his compromise, which had gravity collection out of town." Aaron, you don't seem to "get" that the contract for gravity was signed LONG ago, and the CSD had to abide by that contract, not make up a whole new set of plans. In fact, the Lisa board DID accept the gravity portion - then ratted out by not agreeing to a bridge loan! Blakeslee had nothing to do with that original gravity decision, he was just trying to save the District from ruin - but the Lisa board didn't want to apparently.

I'm glad that you are so in love with STEP - but gravity will work best here for the many reasons stated in the past. But that point too is moot, as you apparently think we don't need a sewer. Why even bother to pipe up, as we ARE getting a sewer, whether you think we need one or not. Let those of us who do want one be the ones to make the decision between STEP and gravity - oh wait, we ALREADY did that!

PS - I never took notes for Bruce Gibson! Why would he even WANT notes from me? Where do you get this stuff?

You're either taking notes for Gibson or you're sleeping with him. For someone to hold some strongly held opinions based on wrong information, I don't know how else you could stand by it.

My belief stems from expert testimony. Though the Prohibition Zone consist of a heavily dense residential area where septic pollution is likely, I believe that many of the once-permitted septic tanks are not the sole cause of pollution. Los Osos septics is not the arch-polluter.

Those are the polluters, but Prohibition Zone residents are being blamed for all of it. They are having to pay based on the loopy presumption that only they are polluting the groundwater.

As a candidate in 2006, you said at the first candidate forum, "I support the Regional Water Quality Board's enforcement," and that statement encompasses support of Resolution 83-13, a resolution that was passed 14 years before the Nitrate Study, which you called "ancient history."

There is no evidence to sustain your belief that all 14,600 residents are polluting the water. Your "belief" has contributed to social alienation; physical, mental, spiritual and fiscal anguish of residents who were proclaimed guilty before they could prove their innocence.

I found another lie that you made. You say I "apparently think we don't need a sewer." Time and time again I have clarified to you on Calhoun's Cannon, on the Razor and in personal e-mail correspondence -- which you've omitted in your criticism of me -- that Los Osos needs a sewer, but PZ residents shouldn't be the only ones that pick up the tab. I find your assertions to be intellectually dishonest.

Geez Aaron... you keep on proving what a pompus ass you really are...!!! Sleeping with Gibson...??? What in the world are you thinking...??? Is that the best insult you can come up with...???? Do you ever think or just run off at the mouth... But keep on running your words, we're all getting a great laugh out of a little boy trying to talk grown up...

Well, Aaron you have hit a new low. Off-topic, uncalled for, puerile and rather off-key creepy. You have only damaged yourself with your grossly inappropriate statement.

Back ON topic, you seem to be confusing the estuary and the bay with the aquifers. 83-13 was NOT about pollution in the estuary, but in our drinking water.

Whatever the tests said then doesn't matter now anyway. We can't go back in time, although PZLDF tried - and royally failed. It isn't about a Prohibition Zone, it is about our aquifer pollution. What has Water Board enforcement go to do with our moral obligation to not pee into where we drink anyway? Shouldn't we be doing this without prodding? Animals with no training whatsoever have figured that one out!

The upper aquifer was safe to drink not that long ago. It isn't now. Have we suddenly had a huge influx of cows and horses over the past 30 years to cause this? No, less if anything. Why won't you accept that we are obligated to clean up our pollution?

You want to add in Cabrillo and other non-PZ areas? You are asking to spend a LOT MORE money to do so, upping the cost over what we are already having to pay. Cabrillo's run off goes off in another direction, therefor not harming our aquifers and it would be silly to include the 1 acre lots, as septics do work there.

No one is blaming Los Osos for all pollution, but we of all entities that you list, do the LEAST toward cleaning up our water, which is nothing. That is why I support the Water Board, because special interests would derail any sewer project without the threat of fines. That is just a sad reality for Los Osos.

You make excuses that we shouldn't have to pay because others pollute too. But others are already paying! There are special restrictions on ag run-off and farmers pay for it and monitor it. Morro Bay is building a new plant. The Men's Colony pays fines if it goofs - their discharge is closely monitored. (And BTW, the park and Cuesta all use that same WWTF.) The question should be - why has it taken so long for us to pay - it costs us more each time we try to avoid fixing it.

I must have hit a nerve. "Off-topic, uncalled for, puerile and rather off-key creepy." Sounds like a description of one of "Mike's" posts followed by an army of exclamation points, character attacks and death threats written in CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As someone who has mocked the fidelity of the LOCSD directors anonymously on SanLuisObispo.com, I find your offense to my ribbing to be hilarious. In all seriousness, you do have some eerily similar traits to Gail Wilcox. You and Wilcox have been selling gravity way before the promise from the County that the best technology would float to the top. Everything other alternative would sink before they were given the ability to swim.

Because you're treading over the same ground that we've discussed before, I will direct you to my previous comments (made since November 2008). I've made my positions rather clear, but somehow you keep misinterpreting where I stand. At this point in time, I find no reason to discuss anything further with you.

Well Mother time has ticked her tock and we’ve been kicked off the front page again.Actually Lynette (toons preferred?)I regret to say that you are more then 51% right, I'm not sure how you did it. I don’t have the time to review that ALL of Cabrillo’s groundwater contribution, (western edge certainly drains directly west) does NOT: 1. enter the non aquifer- perched communicating, potentially-entering drinking supply groundwaters.2. communicate via known (Creek) or unknown underground structures (nothing magical about that)into the 2+ constrained Aquifers.

Given that the value of 14,600 is mentioned (2000 census is on order of, 14,350 if memory serves) you are not isolating PZ in your statements. The waterboard did. Consequence? And you are totally wrong about "No one is blaming Los Osos for all pollution" It is exactly because of statements of that nature, by the regulatory authorities, that I, and I (know and) suspect some of the other SCIENTISTS involved, shed the scientific neutrality. I’ve agreed with Wade Brimm, before I heard of him, or of his words, because there are physical consequences to interruptions to the natural transport of waters, via drilling, and that is even with careful drilling, without significant pumping.

I wrote this following italicized YESTERDAY, after the midday post by Aaron. Didn't post it, because the cycle deteriorated ("Thanks" Mike~~~~~~~~);Interesting Cycle, worked its way back to technical matters, except for the acrimony. You are both right and both wrong. Gosh that sounded real Namby pamby. And the TRVTH never lies in the exact middle.Well I did make most of those points at one time or another before State and Federal agencies .I suggest you both (mostly Aaron, in this instance) clearly separate Aquifer pollution from Bay pollution.And, S-toons the aquifer recharge umbrella and the transport of pollutants is bigger than the regulatory umbrella. I'm so glad you guys are getting to almost not talking past each other."

Special note to Aaron; you have gained some significant respect in my eyes, and I don't hand that out easily or in negotiation. But it is still your potential I am respecting. I have been given the ultimate compliment by most of the Key Players in this Game, including Walcott recognized players. This is not about you, please do not engage me in challenge.And thank you well stated, but to clarify further I am not a centrist because I listen to opinions. Choosing to break the cycle of operating out of “victimization” has more to do with it. The more I observed the Data, the more I understood T-W design was not all that bad (The County’s Tonini proved me right on that technically, expense is another matter, social feasibility, land use non-withstanding. Also as presented in ‘05 was not going to deliver from SW Intrusion. Broederson capacity= Total project Output? unlikely, Miller proved me right on that) And that was around late ’05 that I Blah blah blah These paragraphs available, free of charge, for trolling by Wolcott recognized players.

Calhouns Can(n)ons

About the Can(n)ons

Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com

To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful. Edward R. Murrow

It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.Antoine de Saint-ExuperyThe Little Prince

No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly. Montaigne